You know what, I just listened to this whole thing and it struck me, why are you talking to this guy? He's clearly delusional and would not admit anything that did not fit into his peculiar world-view if it walked up to him and punched him on the face. In fact even if God did exist and appeared before Sye and contradicted his understanding (you know, saying something like, "Sorry guys, the bloke that wrote this bit of scripture spelled that word wrong and it cocked the whole thing up") then this guy would still argue.

I am not a philosopher or a scientist, I'm a cop and one thing I'm pretty good at (though I admit I'm not perfect) is spotting evasion and word games. This guy Sye is clearly being evasive and like a stereotypical sly lawyer he cares nothing about the truth and more about playing word games and obfuscation.

Sye Ten does not understand what evidence and definitions are. Measurements (not reason or logic) backup reality. Logic only applies once the premise is deemed true through measurement. Fiating reality is not truth.

I agree that manslaughter would have been a better charge. This was a non-trial. Florida did not want to prosecute and would not have w/o public pressure. They knew 2nd degree murder would be a no-go. This kind of thing is done all the time when a public DA is forced into a trial they do not to prosecute. Bump up the charge and acquital is guarenteed.

Is "you cannot use your reasoning to justify your reasoning because it is circular" a valid argument? Reasoning is a process - using info and logic to draw conclusions. The justification for reasoning is not reasoning but the correctness of the conclusions drawn and predictions made through the process of reasoning.

Most intellectually honest response: "That's a suggestive question. I have no precedence to believe that I could be wrong about everything I know, though I've proven to be wrong about somethings. There's never been an instance where I have or have not been wrong about everything, so answering 'yes' or 'no' won't be justifiable."

"You're borrowing from my worldview!"

Response: "Worldviews are necessarily interchangeable perspectives of reality and therefore subjective interpretations of reality. For example, if a Muslim presuppostional apologist made this argument, I'd be borrowing from his worldview, but not yours. If a FSM-ist presuppositional apologist made this argument, I'd be borrowing from his worldview, etc."

I'm sorry to say this, guys, but you suck at debate. I would too, I admit 8D , but I have a luxury of not being in the debate with a despicable liar like Sye, so I can keep calm.

We don't actually need real world data to show than not everything is possible, speculation is enough to reason that's impossible, because some things are contradicting each other, they are cancelling out one another. If everything is possible, it is possible that not everything is possible, so the argument eliminates itself.

Same with "maybe everyone is wrong about everything", it just doesn’t work.

I absolutely love presup! I can not wait until we are no longer hindered as a species by immature superstitions and the desperation dripping from such vapid nonsense is surely a sign that religion is at worst on the decline and at best in its death throes. God has been relegated to the domain of shitty philosophy. I'm so excited for and envious of my children's children.

I wanted to know where he was going with the reality changing bit, because despite what was said here we DO assume that the laws of physics will continue on in the future as they did in the past. It's called a reasonable assumption. We can't know that the laws won't change in the future, but given that they never have there's no good reason to think they will. I don't understand why he thinks that that would be a win for him.

A simple answer to Sye is that even IF we could not "account" for reason and logic, that does NOT presuppose his worldview or deity, because he has not been able to demonstrate how or why his worldview does account for logic and reason AND that makes it a god of the gaps fallacy. We don't know something, so god must fit there. There's no justification for his position. You can't just let him merely state that it does as anything more than an assertion, but you can still state that you don't know without him some how magically winning.

If Zimmerman had fired the gun in the air and it happen to have hit Martin or anyone else for that matter, THEN it could have been considered manslaught, because it could be shown that he intended to discharge the weapon, but didn't intend it to hit someone. That would be negligence, but Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin, so it was 2nd degree murder.

The problem with Stand Your Ground law is that the language of the law allows for personal grudges to be solved with killing them and claiming that they felt threatened. Meaning someone's misconceptions or claimed fears, true or not, can justify killing ANYONE, but killing on racial grounds can and will be a disproportionate issue because of it.

This was a seriously jacked up and messed up break down of the Zimmerman case. No one is trying to convict Zimmerman for non-crimes, so your constant "he's wrong but hasn't broken the law," is a asinine attempt to draw out the story. The charges were that he wasn't JUSTIFIED in shooting Martin, because it wasn't a proportional response to a threat. It couldn't be shown that Zimmerman had a reasonable justification that his LIFE was in danger. The racist charge was based on his motivation, but it isn't considered a legal issue. No one wants him legally charged for racism, because we know that being a racist isn't, nor should be, illegal, but it is still relevant to the case, because it plays in on wheter or not he was justified in shooting Martin.

Oh and BTW, Zimmerman LOOKED Hispanic, but he wasn't. It may have been in his bloodline, but the familty was actually just white. Germanic in fact, hence the ZIMMERMAN. I get the feeling that the host of this show wasn't following the case very well. besides it can still be racist and/or racially motivated even if he WAS Hispanic, because he would STILL have been from another race.

The reason for 2nd degree is that he didn't fire the gun on accident. C'mon, because he shot Martin with intent to shoot him. It wasn't a case where the gun unintentionally discharged and no one is claiming that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to kill him either, because that would have made it pre-meditated and as such a 1st degree murder charge. It wasn't manslaughter, because he didn't discharge the weapon by accident through negligent handling. He discharged it with intent TOWARDS Martin not just the air.

And you guys don't seem to understand what negligencey mean. He didn't use the firearm with neglicence. He USED it with INTENT. Meaning he INTENTIONALLY used it on Martin. Not that Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, but that it happened anyway.

Definitions and evidence. How do you define things and evaluate evidence unless you use reason? To do science you use reason. Parroting the atheist line that you don't need rationality is stupidly self-defeating...they're just ignoring their obvious error that you need rationality to determine the truth.

Re Presup: Has anyone *ever* been persuaded to belief by this argument? Take a look at Stephen Law using Sye TenB's own technique in parody. It *is* a parody but it has exactly the same unfalsifiable quality as Presup. Then watch Sye TenB's endless refusal to acknowledge this in the comment stream: stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/sye-show-continues.html

Regarding Zimemrman and Stand Your Ground. Stand your ground was part of the case, because the jury instructions for self-defense used the stand your ground phrasing almost word for word. Zimemrman did not demand a stand your ground hearing, which he does not have to do.

ITheJayTheist- Sye would cliam that that is 'begging the question', and of course, claiming that the Bible is revelation from God is not begging the question at all. Sye is an idiot. John Karpf- exactly. Sye supporters- really? Really? How stupid are you?

I have heard several of Sye's debates with atheists and have yet to hear an atheist answer one particular question correctly. If anyone actually reads this please PLEASE spread the word that if you are ever asked if you could be wrong about everything you know, the correct answer is "NO, I can't be wrong about everything because I am self aware and the knowledge of my own existence has to be correct, because if i didn't exist I couldn't be self aware." Or, as Decartes put it "Cogito ergo sum" which translates to "I think therefore I am."

Sye's little word game applies to him as well. He is attempting use his reasoning to justify his reasoning. Since he claims that atheists are doing this as well it puts him right back on equal footing in the discussion. Now the only difference between Sye and the Atheits is evidence. Sye has no evidence for his claims and the Atheists do. END OF DEBATE!

All of you are relying on other people, machines or different processes to show that your reasoning is valid. For all you know those things are just figments of your imagination. If a person who does not have valid reasoning decides to walk across a river on a bridge and the bridge is a figment of their imagination, they will soon realize they have nothing to stand on, much like those who deny the existence of God.

Reality and truth are not subjective. Knowledge and belief are not the same. Misrepresenting an argument does not prove it wrong. Proving someone wrong does not make you right. Crying about being talked over does not make you a good debater. Try again Sye. I remain unconvinced.